LUND UNIVERSITY

PO Box 117221 00 Lund+46 46-222 00 00

The role of discourses in governing forests to combat climate change

Nielsen, Tobias

Published in:International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics

DOI:10.1007/s10784-013-9223-4

2014

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Nielsen, T. (2014). The role of discourses in governing forests to combat climate change. InternationalEnvironmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(3), 265-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-013-9223-4

Total number of authors:1

General rightsUnless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply:Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authorsand/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by thelegal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private studyor research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will removeaccess to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

ORI GIN AL PA PER

The role of discourses in governing forests to combatclimate change

Tobias Dan Nielsen

Accepted: 30 August 2013! Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Reducing emissions from forest degradation and deforestation, conserving andenhancing forest carbon stocks, and sustainably managing forests (REDD?) has emergedas one of the most anticipated climate change mitigation tools. This paper aims tounderstand and identify the underlying discourses that have dominated the emergence ofREDD?, by identifying the key story lines in the policy and academic debates on REDD?.As such, this paper takes a step away from the ‘‘fine-tuning’’ of policy recommendationsand instead studies REDD? from a more theoretical approach with the intent to provide acritical analysis of the ideational structures that shape the policies that have emergedaround REDD?. The analysis shows that ecological modernization and its accompanyingstory lines constitute a dominant notion of REDD? as being able to manage the com-plexities of forest in a synergetic way, combining cost-efficient and effective mitigationwith sustainable development. The paper also identifies the critical counter discourse ofcivic environmentalism, which criticizes this notion of REDD? and instead promotesissues such as equity, the importance of local knowledge, and the participatory process. Itargues that reducing deforestation involves trade-offs between economic, ecological, andsocial dimensions, also arguing that REDD? fits overwhelmingly with the interest of theglobal North.

Keywords Climate change ! REDD? ! International climate negotiations !UNFCCC ! Payment for ecosystem services ! Discourse analysis !Story line ! Ecological modernization ! Civic environmentalism

AbbreviationsCIFOR Center for International Forestry ResearchCOP Conference of Parties (annual UN climate summits)FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United NationsLCA Long-term cooperative action

T. D. Nielsen (&)Department of Political Science, Lund University, Box 52, 221 00 Lund, Swedene-mail: tobias.nielsen@svet.lu.se

123

Int Environ AgreementsDOI 10.1007/s10784-013-9223-4

MRV Monitoring, reporting, verificationNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationPES Payment for ecosystem servicesREDD? Reducing emissions from forest degradation and deforestation, conserving

and enhancing forest carbon stocks, and sustainably managing forestsSBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological AdviceTEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and BiodiversityUNEP United Nations Environmental ProgramUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention for Climate ChangeUN-REDD United Nations collaborative program on REDD?

1 Introduction

Global efforts to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere havebeen seen to be practically impossible to achieve without reducing emissions caused bydeforestation. This has placed deforestation squarely within climate abatement policyoptions, but also made forests governable in a new way by framing forests as crucialcarbon stocks. As a result, avoiding deforestation has, over the past decade, become acentral element of negotiation at the annual United Nations summits on climate change—the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties(COPs). The focal point of this, so far, has been the UN-based mechanism named REDD?,which stands for ‘‘reducing emissions from forest degradation and deforestation, con-serving and enhancing forest carbon stocks, and sustainably managing forests.’’ Althoughthe policies on REDD? are far from finalized,1 a key notion is that REDD? is expected toestablish incentives for developing countries to REDD? to ‘‘protect and better managetheir forest resources, by creating and recognizing a financial value for the additionalcarbon stored in trees or not emitted to the atmosphere’’ (Corbera and Schroeder 2011,p. 89; see also Hufty and Haakenstad 2011; Kanowski et al. 2011; Angelsen et al. 2012).This ‘‘new’’ way of governing forests has been promoted as being able to break withdecades of slow progress attempting to reduce rates of deforestation by appealing to avariety of interests, and potentially providing synergies between economic, environmental,and social issues (Angelsen et al. 2012; Pistorius 2012). However, despite its initialmomentum at the international climate negotiations, the latest COP meetings have witnessslow progress on REDD? negotiations.2 Critique and resistance to REDD? has grownalong with its status at the COP negotiations. Critics argue that REDD? is too fixated oncarbon stocks and that governing the Earth’s tropical rainforests is linked to differentpolitical, economic, technical, ecological, and social issues not fully acknowledged inREDD? (Peskett et al. 2011; Thompson et al. 2011).

1 There are, however, a number of activities in progress, such as REDD? readiness projects (pilot projects)and capacity-building projects in different countries for the future implementation of REDD? (cf. Cerbuet al. 2011; Angelsen et al. 2012). Additionally, there are also a number of international organizationsworking on REDD? including the implementation of REDD? activities and informing the negotiations ofthe lessons learned (UN-REDD, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, REDD? Partnership as well as anumber of NGOs).2 In relation to this Antonio La Vina, Facilitator of UNFCCC negotiations on REDD?, stated in 2011 atForest Day 5 at COP 17, ‘‘that we have come as far as we can with REDD? negotiations.’’ (Author’s notes).

T. D. Nielsen

123

The argument that I present in this paper is that REDD? policymaking is not ‘‘only’’ amatter of getting the most effective monitoring or the most effective financial incentives. Afundamental root of political conflict in negotiating REDD? is how issues get defined—hence which aspects of social and physical reality are included and which are not (Hajer1995, p. 43). In this light, forests do not immanently lead to a specific understanding, butcan be viewed in different ways. For example, being the home to various species, people,and natural resources, or viewed primarily as crucial carbon sinks. Consequently, gov-erning forests can then be viewed as a case of governing the carbon reservoirs, improvingthe livelihoods of the local populations, promoting biodiversity, or providing a cost-effi-cient mitigation option. All leading to different focus on what policies to implement toachieve different goals. To explore this, I move away from the REDD? literature onidentifying and ‘‘fine-tuning’’ policy recommendations for REDD? according to prede-termined goals (Corbera et al. 2010; Fry 2011; Grainger and Obersteiner 2011). Instead, Iexplore the role of discourses and seek to understand how they shape the debates aroundthe emergence of REDD? in determining how we understand forest, what the focus ofgoverning them should be, and what underlying rationales this conforms to. To explorethis, this paper builds on the works of analyzing the role of discourses in environmentalgovernance (cf. Hajer 1995; Feindt and Oels 2005; Hajer and Versteeg 2005; Zannakis2009) and forestry (cf. Backstrand and Lovbrand 2006; Arts et al. 2010; Somorin et al.2012) in order to map the key discourse and understanding the role of discourses instructuring the debates around the emergence of REDD?. As such, this is not a very fine-grained resolution of REDD?, but one aimed at presenting a general overview from whichthe fundamental debates about the underpinning structures of REDD? can be observed.

The following section will introduce the paper’s discursive framework and introduce thekey analytical: story lines and discursive power. This will be followed by the mapping ofthe key story lines of the general debates on REDD?. They will then be grouped accordingto previously identified environmental discourses. On the basis of this, I will examine thediscursive power relations between the dominant environmental discourses and identifykey aspects of this in relation to how REDD? is being governed.

2 Discourse analysis and story lines

The definition of discourse that I will resort to in this paper is offered by Maarten Hajer:‘‘Discourse can be defined as a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorizationsthat are produced, reproduced, and transformed in a particular set of practices and throughwhich meaning is given to physical and social realities’’ (Hajer 1995, p. 44). From this, wecan see that the focus of discourse analysis is not on causality but on meaning. Discoursesproduce meaning about a physical reality, such as a place like a forest or a process likedeforestation. By this is meant, that meaning is not given by the ‘‘phenomena itself,’’ but isestablished through discourses. Tropical rain forests can, for example, be seen as importantinstruments for low-cost climate mitigation or as sources of biological diversity, liveli-hood, and cultural values (Backstrand and Lovbrand 2006). Discourses favor certaindescriptions of reality and empower certain policy tools while marginalizing others (Litfin1994). If we see forests as important carbon sinks, certain policies will be more relevantthan if we see them as sources of important biodiversity. Discourses represent the dominantperspectives, understandings, and knowledge regimes present in governance debates onREDD?. They set the boundaries around how we speak about a given phenomena and aredeeply embedded in the formation of knowledge on a given issue. Consequently, REDD?

The role of discourses in governing forests

123

policies should not be seen as neutral tools, but instead seen as products of competingdiscourses and, thus, critically analyzed (Feindt and Oels 2005).

By understanding REDD? at the intersection of various discourses, we are betterpositioned to understand the different constructions of meanings by policy actors, as wellas how they act and rationalize such actions according to those meanings. This paperprovides an overview of previously established environmental discourses by examining thepresence of their discursive story lines in both the literature and practitioner’s debates onREDD?. In the words of Hajer, a story line:

…is a generative sort of narrative that allows actors to draw upon various discursivecategories to give meaning to specific physical or social phenomena. They keyfunction of story lines is that they suggest unity in the bewildering variety of separatediscursive component parts of a problem like acid rain. The underlying assumption isthe people do not draw on comprehensive discursive systems for their cognitionrather these are evoked through story lines. (Hajer 1995, p.56)

Every discourse has its key story line that attempts to attract people. As such, they are able tobring together various actors across fields with overlapping perceptions and understandings onissues such as the role of markets, equity, or scientific advice in governing REDD? (Hajer1995). Story lines are rhetorical devices deployed to convince listeners or readers by putting asituation in a particular light (Dryzek 2005, p. 19), but are also rhetorical fuel for promotingcertain ideas, understandings, and perceptions (Smith and Kern 2007). A story line is often arather complex chain of arguments, though one which can produce telling and attractive imageswhile only uttering a few words or a couple of sentences (Zannakis 2009, p. 56). For example,the story line win–win-win (see below) is argued through a comprehensive set of reports andstudies (cf. Stern Review 2006), but is simple in its message. Actors involved in the debates canuse these ‘‘simplistic’’ story lines to present a more complex debate. However, by using specificstory lines, actors also buy into the norms, values, and perceptions of the story lines (Smith andKern 2007). Hence, story lines can be seen as powerful devices through which actors makesense of complex issues without reverting to comprehensive and cumbersome explanations, butat the same time help constitute a policy area such as REDD? according to discursivestructures. I argue that story lines are important parts of discourses because they both attractpotential audiences and present the core values, norms, and ideational structures of discourses.They provide narratives that illustrate the policy rhetoric of scientists, environmentalists,politicians, or businesses. It is the story lines and their key understanding, rhetoric’s and policyrationales that this paper seeks to map. By mapping them, we can identify the presence ofdiscursive practices in the context of REDD?. In doing this, the paper provides a map of the keystory lines and discourses surrounding REDD?, the understandings of the core issues ofREDD?, the policy rhetoric, and the issues that emerge from them.

However, not all story lines and discourses have the same influence on REDD?. Toexamine this further, I will apply the concept of discursive power, e.g. the ability of adiscourse to become the taken-for-granted understanding of a given issue, or in the case ofREDD? the dominant perspectives, understandings, and knowledge regime (Epstein2008). Different discourses favor certain descriptions of reality and empower certain policytools while marginalizing others. They represent specific knowledge regimes, which setborders around how we understand and speak about a phenomenon like deforestation, andare deeply embedded in the formation of knowledge on a given issue (ibid). The powerstruggles between these discourses shape how we understand and perceive what issues aremost important, and subsequently, the different policy mechanisms that REDD? shouldfocus on to help solve them. The various discourses dominant in the REDD? debate are

T. D. Nielsen

123

not of equal ability to shape the debates, so on the basis of the data gathered, this paper willexamine the relative power of each discourse. Due to its format, this paper will not delivera full account of the discursive power struggle within REDD?, but on the basis of thematerial will provide an indication of what discourse(s) dominates REDD?.

The data I have used for my analysis primarily comes from an academic literature review Igather based on literature search on LibHub, Google Scholar, and online forays for REDD?.It also includes a review of ‘‘gray literature,’’ including texts from the Center for InternationalForestry Research (CIFOR), UN-REDD, REDD-monitoring3, and Climate-l,4 (to name afew), as well as examining policy recommendations such as the UNFCCC negotiation text.Moreover, I conducted observations at COP 17 in Durban by attending the Subsidiary Bodyfor Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and Long-Term Cooperative Action(LCA) negotiations—when possible, and by interviewing negotiators5 and attending theNGO briefings. I also conducted five informal expert interviews in 2011 and 2012. In thispaper, I have provided a number of quotes from different texts and actors to illustrate the coremessage of the story lines and how they appear in the data I have collected. The limitations ofusing story line analysis are that it is not as straightforward as some other approaches withregard to displaying the exact steps and methods I have done my analysis with; by presentingthese quotes, I hope to give the reader an illustration for how these story lines appear.

3 Key story lines of REDD1

3.1 Cost-efficiency

This cost-efficient reasoning in sustaining forests saw its key advocates tying togethereconomics and climate change in influential reports by putting an economic value onecosystem services, which include the following: Stern Review (2006), McKinsey’s GlobalGreenhouse Gas Abatement Curve (2006), the Eliasch Review (2007) and The Economicsof Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), as well as academic papers such as Gullison et al.(2007) and Kindermann et al. (2008). All of these reports promote reducing deforestationas cost-effective to some extent, with some proponents of this rationale promoting‘‘reducing deforestation’’ as a cost-efficient mitigation alternative to an otherwise expen-sive and daunting future climate change scenario.

Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducing greenhouse gasemissions. (Stern Review, Executive Summary 2006, p. xxxv)A central element … will be the inclusion of the forest sector in global carbonmarkets. In doing so, the costs of reducing global carbon emissions will be reducedsubstantially, and lower costs will mean that a more ambitious overall emissionstarget will be possible. (Eliasch 2008, p. xii)

This story line was especially dominant in the early stages of REDD?, where it wasaccepted as common knowledge (Stephan 2012), and it has been argued that these reportshelped to propel deforestation onto the international stage by offering an interestingeconomic perspective to an otherwise somewhat neglected topic (Agrawal 2005; Angelsenet al. 2012).

3 www.redd-monitor.org4 http://climate-l.iisd.org/5 From Norway, Bolivia, Denmark, and the Philippines.

The role of discourses in governing forests

123

3.2 Win–win–win

This story line promotes the belief that REDD? cannot only provide effective and cost-efficient emission reduction, but also improve forest conservation and reduce poverty(Hufty and Haakenstad 2011; Kanowski et al. 2011). As such, the win–win–win story linefollows the notion that the environment and development can become a win–win situation,rather than a zero-sum game (Zannakis 2009). This notion has allowed REDD? to gen-erate support from a diverse set of actors (McDermott et al. 2011). It carries a neo-liberalrationale that emphasizes the economic and market aspects of REDD? while also advo-cating for the compatibility of economics with ecology (Gullison et al. 2007; Venter et al.2009) and its potential to contribute to poverty reduction and improved rural livelihoods(Angelsen 2008; Campbell 2009). In this light, REDD? potentially offers a panaceasolution that allows society to continuing living as it does now. The win–win–win storyline arguably provides one of the greatest appeals of REDD?, which in my observation isoften the core ‘‘selling point’’ of REDD? (cf. UN-REDD and Forest Carbon PartnershipFacility homepages). This story line connects to the previous, but goes further than simplyperceiving REDD? as a cost-efficient mitigation tool (see below):

Tackling the causes of poverty through an approach that offers local communitiesalternatives to deforestation is an important part of efforts to reinforce and sustainaction. (Stern 2006, p. 586)

3.3 Market rationale

This story line brings in the logic of the market, along with its ‘‘proven’’ abilities ofinnovation and allocation of scarce resources, to provide the best solutions to deforestationand forest degradation by internalizing environmental costs (Baker 2007). The commonlyused PES schemes in the implementation of REDD? are an example of this (Corbera andSchroeder 2011; Hajek et al. 2011; Kanowski et al. 2011). Secondly, the story line presentsthe role of the private sector as being pivotal in REDD? since it offers technical inno-vation in resolving issues connected to REDD?, e.g. companies specializing in monitoringcarbon sequestration (Corbera and Schroeder 2011; Angelsen et al. 2012). Lastly, it con-nects REDD? to the carbon market, framing it as the only way to secure adequate funding:

Like it or not, if we expect real climate gains from REDD, it means a carbonmarket… Bilateral and multilateral funding that has been flowing thus far would notbe enough to push REDD? to the scale it needed to result in a significant reductionof emissions. (Andrea Tuttle, a director at the Pacific Forest Trust in CIFOR 2011)

The successful formation of a REDD? governance mechanism is dependent on asuccessful linkage to the carbon market, which is indispensable in reaching the anticipatedfunding needed to run REDD? schemes, as government funds will not be enough (Simula2010, p. 62). The market is therefore viewed as the best method for allocating funding inREDD? activities. Hence, it should be able to operate with the least amount of regulatoryrestraint, and the funding for REDD? mechanism should come directly from a carbonmarket. This point is often a source of heated controversy at the COP negotiations onREDD?, with countries including Bolivia, and international organizations such as Friendsof the Earth, in stark opposition.

T. D. Nielsen

123

3.4 Carbon accounting

The rhetoric of this story line portrays forests as carbon sinks, which through technicaladvances can be subjected to management and control. By depicting forests as reservoirsand sinks for carbon, the discourse has ‘‘paved the way for expert-oriented narrativesfocusing on scientifically credible measurement techniques and verification schemes’’(Backstrand and Lovbrand 2006, p. 62). Technical terms include: carbon leakage, addi-tionality, and baseline comparison, whereas issues connected to carbon monitoring,reporting, and verification (MRV) are at the core of this category, and have become anintegral part of the REDD? policy debates.6 The story line draws attention to the calcu-lative practices that turn stocks and flows of forest carbon into objects of governance(Lovbrand and Stripple 2011). According to the rationale of this story line, a core task inrealizing REDD? is mapping the earth ‘‘system’’ (in this case, forest sequestration andother forest ecosystem services) and applying an administrative rationale to help guide apath toward sustainable forestry. The story line hinges on an ability to account for stocksand flows of carbon, which has arguably created a demand within REDD? to develop(competing) guidelines for precisely measuring carbon sinks and sequestration in theworld’s tropical forests. The story line can be found in the numerous guidelines andtoolkits on how to manage the operationalization of different technical issues such ascarbon monitoring, and on how to set reference levels. As the statement below indicates,the administrative rationale is more intrinsically argued (cf. Winrock International, UN-REDD, Meridian Institute, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility). Consequently, the storyline is closely related to scientific expertise in the form of the numerous guidelines andtoolkits produced by a variety of actors. This story line is often connected to the marketrationale and technocratic rationale (see below) as illustrated in the following quote:

To provide REDD policymakers and practitioner communities with the information,analysis and tools they need to ensure effective and cost-efficient reduction of carbonemissions with equitable impacts and co-benefits. Tools will be developed that aretailor-made to the needs of policy formulations and strategy design, includingtoolkits, guidelines and manuals… (Center for International Forestry Research(CIFOR) in Paker 2009, p. 104)

3.5 Technocratic rationale

A story line directly related to the carbon accounting story line is the technocratic rationale.It contains clear liberal institutional connotations by placing an emphasis on the gover-nance capabilities of international organizations. For example, Obersteiner et al. 2009argue for a new institution to manage monitoring, reporting, and verifying issues connectedto REDD? (a similar proposal can be seen in Cerbu et al. 2011). It also emphasizesrecommendations on how to improve the management of REDD? by improving mea-surement capabilities, learning from REDD? readiness projects or including the voices oflocal communities to a greater extent (see special issue on REDD? edited by Corbera andSchroeder 2011). The key rationale of this story line is that managing nature and providing

6 The continuing debate about whether to use Reference Levels (RL) versus Reference Emissions Levels(REL) could be used as an example. The exact distinction is unclear to many practitioners, and the level oftechnical detail is so high that it leaves some practitioners not able to fully participate in the discussions(interview with observer at the Bonn SBSTA meeting 2011 on ‘‘Forest reference emission levels and forestreference levels for implementation of REDD-plus activities’’).

The role of discourses in governing forests

123

mitigation and adaptation policies (based on expert scientific research and advice) are themeans best suited for solving the issues concerning REDD?. Hence, through scientificexpertise, societies are able to monitor, understand, and manage human patterns of pol-lution and environmental degradation. Stocks and flows of carbon are therefore constructedas administrative domains amenable to certain forms of political rationality such as gov-ernment regulation (Lovbrand and Stripple 2011, p. 186). In some ways, this story line is alogical continuation of the previous carbon accounting story line. The ways in whichcarbon can be measured, quantified, demarcated, and statistically aggregated lead to aspecific rationality, thereby placing a strong need on the role of institutions, ‘‘good gov-ernance’’ and effective laws to protect the environment and human well-being (Nasi et al.2011).

3.6 Beyond markets

This story line criticizes the carbon fixation of REDD? and can be seen to be critical tomost of the previous story lines mentioned in this paper, particularly the ones promoting amarket-based approach. Instead, it places a greater emphasis on alternative areas to focuson including the social dimension and biodiversity over a narrow focus on carbonsequestration:

The notion that REDD will make ‘‘forests worth more alive than dead’’ is wishfulthinking in most cases, and worse, builds upon the misguided notion that money andfinance is the solution, and that policy measures will not work and should not even beconsidered…. The carbon market is a seductively simple mechanism that promisedto solve lots of big, complicated problems, and do so in a way that would bring‘‘wins’’ to the North, who were looking for a cheap way out, and ‘‘wins’’ to theSouth, who were looking for investments. Its attractiveness and durability is in partdue to its elegance: saving, or making, money for everyone while reducing emissionsin a quantifiable manner, but also, in part because an entire industry has grown uparound it now, high-tech CO2 measurement, private consultancies and conservationNGOs who now have a vested interest in making it work. (Andy White, Coordinatorof the Rights and Resources Initiative (Lang 2011)).

The story line projects REDD? not as maximizing synergies (e.g. win–win-win), but asinvolving trade-offs between economic growth and sustainable forest management Glucket al. 2010). Furthermore, the promise of a win–win–win scenario is a rhetorical ploy thatattempts to reconcile the irreconcilable, and is designed to take the wind out of the sails ofthe ‘‘real’’ environmentalist (Hajer 1995, p.34) It is very critical toward the role of a carbonmarket as a means of funding for REDD?, as well as a means for the equitable distributionof resources. REDD? oversimplifies the processes that lead to forest degradation anddeforestation by simplistically blaming the communities that live in and around thoseforests,7 rather than, for example, the production processes of timber (Dauvergne andLister 2011). It also criticizes the emphasis on market-based instruments to implementREDD?, questioning the taken-for-granted effectiveness and efficiency. Instead, thereshould be an emphasis on equity and legitimacy as criteria for implementation andassessments of REDD? activities. The story line focuses on the question of which actorshave the right to benefit from REDD?, highlighting a concern that a focus on effectiveness

7 Assigning blame is a critical tool for legitimizing REDD? governmental efforts to control the locationsand behaviors of these communities (Thomson et al. 2011:108).

T. D. Nielsen

123

and efficiency could result in unfair incentives (e.g., rewarding wealthy actors for reducingtheir illegal behavior), as well as increasing inequality and undermining the moral andpolitical legitimacy of REDD? (Peskett et al. 2011; Krause et al. 2013). An example ofthis has been the promotion of the three e’s (effectiveness, efficiency, and equity) approachto implementing REDD? activities (Angelsen et al. 2012).

3.7 Local not only global

This story line emphasizes the social dimension as being crucial for REDD? governance,both in terms of empowering local stakeholders and addressing some of the underlyingsocial drivers of deforestation (cf. Agrawal and Angelsen 2009; Ezzine-de-Blas et al. 2011;Hajek et al. 2011; Lyster 2011). Consequently, it highlights a participatory deficit in theREDD? policy process while arguing that in order to build more effective governancestructures, REDD? has to give a voice to the groups who are affected or who have alegitimate interest or stake in REDD? (Hajek et al. 2011). Thus, national REDD? projectscan secure higher levels of ‘‘forest carbon-related co-benefits on multiple dimensions’’ bytaking the lessons of community forestry into account when designing REDD? initiatives.A key argument of this story line is that local knowledge has not been adequately repre-sented during the policy process. Furthermore, the uncertainty and risks related to climatechange have led to a political demand for rational and objective knowledge, which hasfurther minimized the role of indigenous knowledge (Hiraldo and Tanner 2011).

3.8 Biodiversity (seeing beyond the trees)

This story line also promotes the idea of looking beyond carbon and viewing tropicalrainforests as purely carbon sinks, which neglects the importance of their rich biodiversity(for the survival of ecosystems, for the livelihood of local populations, but also forboosting the mitigation and adaptations possibilities of forest). The fear is that if REDD?does not include a clause on biodiversity, the effects could be devastating. As such,REDD? is not an ‘‘easy’’ mitigation tool, but it has the potential to have a catastrophicimpact on biodiversity. Monoculture tree plantations that are great at carbon sequestrationand storage, but do nothing to preserve the unique biodiversity of tropical rain forests,could in theory replace large areas of rain forest.8 Although the issue of monocultures ismentioned in the negotiation on safeguards (FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1), it is still a source ofcontroversy among practitioners (Agrawal and Angelsen 2009; field notes).

3.9 North–South divide

Another key critical story line frames REDD? in terms of the North–South divide(Cadman and Maraseni 2012), giving voice to the critiques of REDD? by indigenouscommunity groups, which feel they are losing control over their forestland and beingoverrun by the rich global North. For example, some developing countries resist thefinancial safeguards that REDD? seeks to impose, arguing that it infringes upon theirsovereignty (observation COP 17). This story line refers to the notion of viewing REDD?as an example of ‘‘carbon colonialism,’’ thereby implying a continued indirect dominationof Southern countries by the rich North (Cabello and Gilbertson 2012). Here, REDD? is

8 Plantations now constitute seven percent of the total forest area (UNEP 2012).

The role of discourses in governing forests

123

perceived as a low-cost, emission reduction mechanism located in the South, yet onewhose profitable exploitation works to the benefit of consumers and companies in theNorth. As a result, REDD? becomes a ‘‘loophole’’ for avoiding the more costly mitigationefforts at home, while green washing and evading the historical responsibility of thecurrent level of man-made concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (White 2011). In otherwords, REDD? allows the North to deflect responsibility for more costly emissionsreductions while promising a ‘‘win–win’’ transfer of resources to the global South(McDermott et al. 2011, p.13).

This table summarizes the key story lines of REDD ? that I have identified (Table 1).

4 Connecting story lines to environmental discourses and examining power relations

As mentioned earlier, story lines are the key narratives of discourses, and this section willrelate the story lines in the previous section to key environmental discourses as identified inprevious studies (see Zannakis 2009; Arts et al. 2010). Each story line can be related tomore than one discourse, e.g. the cost-efficiency story line could be linked to neo-liber-alism, ecological modernization and sustainable development (Zannakis 2009, p.70). Thetask for this section has been to group them according to as few discourses as possible, both

Table 1 (REDD? story lines)

Cost-efficiency REDD? is a cost-effective and relatively ‘‘easy’’ mitigation tool

Win–win–win Able to maximize synergies between economic development, ecology, andsocial issues, such as poverty eradication

Market rationale Performance-based PES schemes

Carbon market necessity

Private sector pivotal

Carbon accounting Ability to account for stocks and flows of forest carbon

Forest viewed as carbon sinks

Highly technical language of debates

Technocratic rationale Turning carbon into a governable commodity

Important role of institutions

Emphasis on ‘‘good governance’’

Standardization and best practice guides

Beyond market Critical to performance-based PES schemes

Trade-offs between economic development

Ecology and social issues

Against linking to carbon market

Local not global Participatory deficit

Emphasis on local views, issues, and knowledge

Importance of livelihood activities

Biodiversity (seeing beyondthe trees)

Carbon focus neglects importance of biodiversity and ecosystems

Critical to potential encouragement of monoculture plantations withinREDD?

North–South divide Carbon colonialism

North deflects their mitigation responsibilities

Infringement on sovereignty

T. D. Nielsen

123

to acquire a parsimonious overview, but more importantly to examine the power of keydiscourses. The argument here is that the more dominant the discourse, the more REDD?story lines it captures (but also which story lines are most commonly used). The story linesof the previous section can be grouped into the ecological modernization and civic envi-ronmentalism discourses, which shows us that they are key discourses on the emergence ofREDD?. The following section will present these discourses and argue which can be seenas the more dominant (e.g., hegemonic) of the two.

4.1 Ecological modernization

Ecological modernization rose in the 1980s as a challenge to the notion that moderncivilization was facing a hard choice between preserving nature and economic growth, asthe notion of ‘‘limits to growth’’ suggested at the Club of Rome in 1972. It emphasizes therole of the market and technological innovation to be able to reverse the negative impacteconomic development has had on the environment. It criticized the failures of ‘‘command-and-control’’ policies and promotes a key role of economic incentives in environmentalpolicy making (Hajer 1995; Baker 2007). A key milestone in the institutionalization ofecological modernization in the environmental domain was the global endorsement of theBrundtland Report ‘‘Our Common Future’’ at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 (Milanezand Buhrs 2007). In relation to REDD?, ecological modernization embraces the cost-efficiency, win–win–win, market rationale, carbon accounting, and technocratic rationalestory lines. As such, it promotes the language of business and conceptualizes environ-mental pollution as a matter of inefficiency while operating within the boundaries of cost-effectiveness and administrative efficiency (Baker 2007). Ecological modernization sug-gests that the recognition of the ecological crisis actually constitutes a challenge forbusiness, though it turns this challenge into a vehicle for its very innovation and impor-tantly, no structural change is then needed (Hajer 1995, p. 34). The role of ecologicalmodernization in the context of REDD? is evident by the dominance of market-driven,techno-managerial, and carbon-focused approaches to reducing tropical deforestation andfor REDD? and that this, at least initially, has been accepted as an effective and cost-efficient mitigation tool. Looking beyond the rhetoric of an effective and cost-efficientsolution with multiple benefits, many of the core ideas and proposed instruments ofREDD?, such as PES schemes and carbon market finance options, as well as its relianceon science, technology, and expert-led processes, can be viewed as being inherent toecological modernization’s approach to tackling environmental degradation (cf. Hajer1995; Backstrand and Lovbrand 2006; Baker 2007; Milanez and Buhrs 2007; Zannakis2009; Arts et al. 2010).

Ecological modernization arguably represents a dominant thinking and policy practicein the negotiations on REDD?. The discursive framing of forests as carbon sinks beingsubject to management and control according to a specific rationale is a key feature of this(Lovbrand and Stripple 2011). Highly technical concepts, such as reference levels, addi-tionality, MRV, have been institutionalized in REDD? debates, even among critical NGOs(cf. reed-monitor) and on-the-ground activities (Hajek et al. 2011). This very technicallevel of REDD ? makes it hard to voice a different story lines to compete with science ofthis discourse. Moreover, the market rationale and win–win–win story lines have, in myview, become almost synonymous with REDD?, as they have become the blueprint forhow to potentially operationalize REDD?, with some forest experts arguing that instru-ments, such as performance-based PES schemes, are what sets REDD? aside from thelimited success of previous attempts to reduce tropical deforestation (Seymour and

The role of discourses in governing forests

123

Angelsen 2012, p. 321). On the same note, the links to a carbon market and the promise ofcheap mitigation option have been seen to drawn in a new and crucial actor in efforts toreduce deforestation—namely the private sector (Simula 2010; Seymour and Angelsen2012). Furthermore, clear lines have been drawn between ecological modernization andorganizations, including the UNEP, FAO, and the World Bank (Backstrand and Lovbrand2006), which are all important players in operationalizing REDD?. As such, I conclude onthe basis of my analysis that ecological modernization can be seen as the dominant dis-course on the emergence of REDD?. Indeed, scholars haven pointed out that REDD?offers, for the first time in history, a widespread consensus on the ‘‘problem,’’ e.g. carbonemissions from forest loss and an appropriate means to address it, e.g. through financialincentives (McDermott et al. 2011, p. 92). However, ecological modernization is far fromhomogenous, it has a particularly broad definition and scholars have pointed out theembedded tension between the neo-liberal and technocratic rationales of the discourse(Zannakis 2009) and between the market rationale and concerns for biodiversity (Hajer andVersteeg 2005).

4.2 Civic environmentalism

As the mapping of story lines indicate, ecological modernization does not tell the full storyof REDD?. The more critical story lines identified in the paper represent a critical counterdiscourse—civic environmentalism. This environmental discourse became popular in the1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Arts et al. 2010).Associated with this discourse is a language that talks of ‘‘stakeholders’’ and ‘‘participa-tion,’’ both of which entered the international arena accompanied by terms, such asdemocratic efficiency, bottom-up approaches, and governance arrangements (Backstrandand Lovbrand 2006). Civic environmentalism includes a multitude of radical and morereform-oriented arguments for mitigating climate change that are critical of an overem-phasis on markets and technical experts ability to solve environmental issues (ibid, p. 64).The former emphasizes the relations of the powerful and powerless. It has a strong anti-neo-liberal stand and argues that the enduring power structures of ‘‘sovereignty, capitalism,scientism, patriarchy and even modernity generate and perpetuate the environmental crisiswhile consolidating structural inequalities between the North and South.’’ (Backstrand andLovbrand 2007, p. 132). The more reform-orientated arguments of civic environmentalismstress the need plurality, but that the underlying norms for this plurality should be based onequity, participation, legitimacy, and accountability (ibid). Despite its heterogeneity, thecore argument of civic environmentalism that I use in the paper is the notion of a need toplace a great emphasis on environmental justice, ecological sustainability, equity, localknowledge systems and the inclusion of local stakeholder participation, all of which civicenvironmentalism promotes as crucial for a successful environmental governance (Artset al. 2010; Zannakis 2009).

In the case of REDD?, civic environmentalism is critical to the ‘‘logic of the market’’(e.g. the PES schemes) and the narrow focus of REDD? on carbon mitigation. Havingseen forestry issues gain fame through their heavy linkage with economic efficiency duringthe emergence of REDD? (Angelsen et al. 2012), the aim of civic environmentalism is totry and reclaim an influence on how forestry issues should be dealt with. The discourseargues for a broader understanding of the role of forests and their vital ecosystem servicesto the survival of the human race (Arts et al. 2010). In this respect, Earth is seen as a fragileecosystem that can support life, but only to a certain limit, thereby necessitating a certain‘‘limit to growth’’ rationale (Zannakis 2009). It argues for a centrality of social and

T. D. Nielsen

123

environmental safeguards that should trump the narrow focus on the commodificationforest carbon fluxes. Civic environmentalism discourse could be argued to have had amarginal effect on policy (Backstrand and Lovbrand 2006). However, some critical per-spectives on sink projects have nevertheless gained ground (Thompson et al. 2011) andsymbolized by the adding of the ‘‘?’’ to REDD (at COP 13 in 2007), which mentionssustainable forest management. In addition, the inclusion of safeguards at the 2010 COP 16REDD ? negotiation text (UNFCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1) can be seen as a significantchange in the REDD? negotiations up until then (Pistorius 2012), as well as the increasingemphasis on issues such as land tenure, biodiversity and the growing criticism of marketfinancing of REDD?. The power of civic environmentalism can also be seen in thegrowing acceptance that REDD? is only achievable through creating democratic, trans-parent and participatory projects that consider the needs and aspirations of local com-munities (Fry 2011; Nasi et al. 2011).

There are, in addition to this, a number of local groups and NGOs that directly opposeREDD?, and do not see any modification of REDD? as possible or desirable. Insteadthese voices argue that REDD? should be abandoned and that no matter how it is modifiedthe neo-liberal roots of REDD? will in the end provide more harm than good to forests,local communities, and the environment (cf. reed-monitoring). Although their views andperceptions are not as evident as other actors in the REDD? policy and academic debate,which generally does not questioning the fundamental ideational framework of REDD?,their views are more in accordance with a radical interpretation of civic environmentalism(see above). This radical interpretation of civic environmentalism signifies a future threatto the implementation of REDD? especially if these voices gather further momentum.

5 Conclusion

In this paper, I have shown the underlying discourses that have dominated the emergenceof REDD?. The analysis shows that ecological modernization and its story lines constitutethe dominant notion of REDD? as being able to manage the complexities of forest in asynergetic way, combining cost-efficient and effective mitigation with sustainable devel-opment. The paper also identifies civic environmentalism as a critical counter discourse,which criticizes the dominant notion of REDD? and instead promotes issues such asequity, the importance of local knowledge, and the participatory process. Instead, civicenvironmentalism argues that reducing deforestation involves trade-offs between eco-nomic, ecological, and social dimensions, and also arguing that REDD? fits over-whelmingly with the interest of the global North. The dominance (and institutionalization)of ecological modernization is evident from the policy options and academic debates onREDD? as shown in this paper. The result of a more powerful ecological modernizationover civic environmentalism can be summed up as: (1) the favoring of commodification offorest carbon stocks over less easily measured social and environmental attributes that maybe important to natural and social resilience; (2) a focus on global rather than localprocesses and financial (PES) instruments at the expense of alternative options; and (3) anover-reliance on experts and advanced technology, leading to the exclusion of locallybased knowledge and a failure to foster widespread understanding and support (see alsoMcDermott et al. 2011, p. 97). Nevertheless, the story of REDD? has not been written yet.The negotiations are still under way and many significant issues still need to be solved ifREDD? is to be fully operationalized. The balance between the discourses can shift overtime and new discourses and story lines may yet emerge.

The role of discourses in governing forests

123

Acknowledgments I am very grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and valuablecomments. I also owe a special thanks to Karin Backstrand, Johannes Stripple, and Fariborz Zelli for theirhelpful comments in the process of writing this paper. Previous versions of this paper were presented at theEarth System Governance Conference in Lund, Sweden, in 2012, and at the International Workshop on TheFragmentation of Global Environmental Governance in Bonn, Germany, in 2011.

References

Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Community, intimate government, and the making of environmentalsubjects in Kumaon India. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 161–190.

Agrawal, A. & Angelsen, A. (2009). Using community forest management to achieve REDD? goals. In A.Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, M. Kanninen, E. Sills, W. D. Sunderlin & S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff (Eds.),Realising REDD?: National strategy and policy options. Centre for International Forestry Research:Bogor, Indonesia.

Angelsen, A. (Ed.). (2008). Moving Ahead with REDD. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International ForestryResearch.

Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W. D. & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. (Eds.).(2009). Realising REDD?: National strategy and policy options. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre forInternational Forestry Research.

Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. V. (Eds.). (2012). Analysing REDD?:Challenges and choices. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research.

Arts, B., Appelstrand, M., Kleinschmit, D., Pulzl H., Visseren-Hamakers, I., Eba’a Atyi, R., Enters T.,McGinley, K., & Yasmi, Y. (2010). Discourses, actors and instruments in international forest gover-nance. In J. Rayner, A. Buck, & P. Katila (Eds.), Embracing Complexity: Meeting the Challenges ofInternational Forest Governance. A Global Assessment Report Prepared by the Global Forest ExpertPanel on the International Forest Regime. International Union of Forest Research Organizations,57–73.

Backstrand, K., & Lovbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses ofecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global EnvironmentalPolitics, 6(1), 50–75.

Backstrand, K. & Lovbrand, E. (2007). Climate Governance Beyond 2012: Competing Discourses of GreenGovernmentality, Ecological Modernization and Civic Environmentalism. In Pettenger (ed.), Thesocial Construction of Climate Change: Power, Knowledge, Norms, Discourses, Ashgate PublishingCompany: Hampshire.

Baker, S. (2007). Sustainable development as symbolic commitment: declaratory politics and the seductiveappeal of ecological modernisation in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 16(2), 297–317.

Cabello, J. & Gilbertson, T. (2012). A colonial mechanism to enclose lands: A critical review of twoREDD? -focused special issues. ephemera 12(1/2), 162–180.

Cadman, T. & Maraseni, T. (2012). The governance of REDD?: An institutional analysis in the Asia Pacificregion and beyond. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, First article, 1–19.

Campbell, B. (2009). Beyond Copenhagen: REDD?, agriculture, adaptation strategies and poverty. GlobalEnvironmental Change, 19, 397–399.

Cerbu, G. A., Swallow, B. M., & Thompson, D. Y. (2011). Locating REDD: A global survey and analysis ofREDD readiness and demonstration activities. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 168–180.

CIFOR (2011). Interview with Andrea Tuttle. http://blog.cifor.org/4921/carbon-market-financing-biggest-factor-to-determine-redd-success-says-expert/#.T3Q6wXjUNzo. Accessed 10 Jan 2012.

Corbera, E., Estrada, M., & Brown, K. (2010). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation andforest degradation in developing countries: Revisiting the assumptions. Climatic Change, 100,355–388.

Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and Implementing REDD?. Environmental Science &Policy, 14(2), 89–99.

Dauvergne, P., & Lister, J. (2011). Timber. Cambridge: Polity Press.Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the Earth: Environmental discourses (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.Eliasch, J. (Ed.). (2008). Climate change: Financing global forests (The Eliasch Review), Office of Climate

Change.Epstein, C. (2008). The power of words in international relations: birth of an anti-whaling discourse.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

T. D. Nielsen

123

Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Borner, J., Violato-Espada, A., Nascimento, N., & Piketty, M. (2011). Forest loss andmanagement in land reform settlements: Implications for REDD governance in the Brazilian Amazon.Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 188–200.

Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005). Does discourse matter? Discourse Analysis in Environmental PolicyMaking, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 7(3), 161–173.

Fry, B. P. (2011). Community forest monitoring in REDD?: The ‘M’ in MRV? Environmental Science &Policy, 14(2), 181–187.

Gluck, P., Angelsen, A., Appelstrand, M., Assembe-Mvondo, S., Auld, G., Hogl, K., Humphreys, D., andWildburger, C. (2010). Core components of the international forest regime complex. In J. Rayner, A.Buck, & P. Katila (Eds.), Embracing complexity: Meeting the challenges of international forestgovernance, a global assessment report prepared by the global forest expert panel on the internationalforest regime. International Union of Forest Research Organizations.

Grainger, A., & Obersteiner, M. (2011). A framework for structuring the global forest monitoring landscapein the REDD? era. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 127–139.

Gullison, R. E., Frumhoff, P. C., Canadell, J. G., Field, C. B., Nepstad, D. C., Hayhoe, K., et al. (2007).Tropical forests and climate policy. Science, 316, 985–986.

Hajek, F., Ventresca, M. J., Scriven, J., & Castro, A. (2011). Regime-building for REDD?: Evidence from acluster of local initiatives in south-eastern Peru. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 201–215.

Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse. Ecological modernization and the policy process.Oxford: Claredon Press.

Hajer, M., & Versteeg, M. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements,challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 175–184.

Hiraldo, R., & Tanner, T. (2011). Forest voices: Competing narratives over REDD?. IDS Bulletin, 42(3),1–10.

Hufty, M., & Haakenstad, A. (2011). Reduced emissions for deforestation and degradation: A criticalreview. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(1), 1–24.

Kanowski, P. J., McDermott, C. L., & Cashore, B. (2011). Implementing REDD?: Lessons from analysis offorest governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 111–117.

Kindermann, G., Obersteiner, M., Sohngen, B., Sathaye, J., Andrasko, K., Rametsteiner, E., et al. (2008).Global cost estimates of reducing carbon emissions through avoided deforestation. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of United States of America, 105, 10302–10307.

Krause, T., Collen, W., and Nicholas, K. A. (2013). Evaluating safeguards in a conservation incentiveprogramme: Participation, consent and benefit sharing in Indigenous communities of the EcuadorianAmazon. Ecology and Society, forthcoming.

Lang, C. (2011). Interview with White, A. http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/05/24/interview-with-andy-white-rights-and-resources-initiative-the-global-market-for-forest-carbon-is-not-going-to-establish-itself-anytime-soon/?utm_source=feedburnerandutm_medium=feedandutm_campaign=Feed%3A?Redd-monitor?%28REDD-Monitor%29, Accessed 25 May 2011.

Litfin, K. (1994). Ozone discourses. Science and politics in global environmental cooperation. New York:Colombia University Press.

Lovbrand, E., & Stripple, J. (2011). Making climate change governable: Accounting for carbon as sinks,credits and personal budgets. Critical Policy Studies, 5(2), 186–199.

Lyster, R. (2011). REDD?, transparency, participation and resource rights: The role of law. EnvironmentalScience & Policy, 14(2), 118–126.

McDermott, C. L., Levin, K., & Cashore, B. (2011). Building the forest-climate bandwagon: REDD and thelogic of problem amelioration. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 85–103.

Milanez, B., & Buhrs, T. (2007). Marrying strands of ecological modernisation: A proposed framework.Environmental Politics, 16(4), 565–583.

Nasi, R., Putz, F., Pacheco, P., Wunder, S., & Anta, S. (2011). Sustainable forest management and carbon intropical Latin America: The case for REDD?. Forests, 2, 200–217.

Obersteiner, M., Huettner, M., Kraxner, F., McCallum, I., Aoki, K., Bottcher, H., et al. (2009). On fair,effective and efficient REDD mechanism design. Carbon Balance and Management, 4(11), 1–11.

Peskett, L., Schreckenberg, K., & Brown, B. (2011). Institutional approaches for carbon financing in theforest sector: Learning lessons for REDD? from forest carbon projects in Uganda. EnvironmentalScience and Policy, 14(2), 216–229.

Pistorius, T. (2012). From RED to REDD?: The evolution of a forest-based mitigation approach fordeveloping countries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 638–645.

Seymour, F. and Angelsen, A. (2012) Summary and conclusions: REDD? without regrets. In A. Angelsen,M. Brockhaus, W.D. Sunderlin & L.V. Verchot (Eds.). Analysing REDD?: Challenges and choices.Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor: Indonesia.

The role of discourses in governing forests

123

Simula, M. (2010). Analysis of REDD? financing gaps and overlaps. REDD? Partnership, 1–99.Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2007). The transitions discourse in the ecological modernisation of the Netherlands.

SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, 160, 1–23.Somorin, O. A., Brown, A. C. P., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Sonwa, D. J., Arts, B., & Nkem, J. (2012). The

Congo Basin forests in a changing climate: Policy discourses on adaptation and mitigation (REDD?).Global Environmental Change, 22, 288–298.

Stephan, B. (2012). Bringing discourse to the market: the commodification of avoided deforesta-tion. Environmental Politics, 21(4), 621–639.

Stern, N. (2006). The economics of climate change (The Stern Review). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M., & Carr, E. R. (2011). Seeing REDD? as a project of environmentalgovernance. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 100–110.

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). 2012. GEO 5: Global Environmental Outlook: Envi-ronment for the Future We Want. Kenya, Nairobi: UNEP.

Venter, O., Laurance, W. F., Iwamura, T., Wilson, K. A., Fuller, R. A., & Possingham, H. P. (2009).Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science, 326, 1368.

Zannakis, M. (2009). Climate policy as a window of opportunity: Sweden and global climate change(Doctoral dissertation, University of Gothenburg: Department of Political Science).

T. D. Nielsen

123